Also See

Thursday, February 20, 2014

The Rising Prominence of John Owen

Review Article of The Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen’s Theology[i]

By Ryan M. McGraw

Scholars are only
recently beginning to note the importance of John Owen as a seventeenth-century
Reformed orthodox theologian. The Ashgate
Research Companion to John Owen’s Theology is the first book of its kind. This
fact should flag this work as an important benchmark in Owen studies. Kelly
Kapic and Mark Jones have assembled a wide array of scholars to treat aspects
of Owen’s theology from the standpoint of his relevance both to historical
theology and to contemporary reflection. While all of the essays in this volume
will attract those interested in Owen and in the theological topics treated,
they are not all of equal quality. This work is not only important for
historical theology. It has the potential to bring Owen’s theology to bear on
many areas of contemporary theology. Because of the importance of this book,
each chapter merits careful analysis.

General Overview
and Bibliography

Following a preface by
Carl Trueman, the book is divided into three sections: method (chapters 1-6),
theology (chapters 7-12), and practice (chapters 13-17). Trueman’s preface
provides a helpful overview of Owen’s life, context, and theological
contributions. The book concludes with a nearly exhaustive bibliography of
material related to Owen by John Tweeddale. This highly valuable resource
includes all of Owen’s printed works in their first editions with full titles.
One useful feature is that Tweeddale devotes an entire section to recording the
numerous prefaces that Owen wrote to other works (309-312). This provides a widow
into books that interested him and authors whom he was willing to endorse. The
list of seventeenth-century sources that responded to or explicitly interacted
with his theology in some manner is interesting as well (312-316). The rest of
the bibliography divides secondary literature between pre and post 1900
publications, followed by doctoral dissertations. This bibliography will prove
invaluable to serious students for years to come.

Analysis of
Chapters

Chapter 1: Ryan Kelly, “Reformed or Reforming? John Owen and
the Complexity of Theological Codification for Mid-Seventeenth-Century
England,” 3-30.

The book gets off to a
strong start with Ryan Kelly’s article on John Owen’s role in the complexity of
theological codification in the seventeenth-century. This is one of the most
fascinating chapters in this volume. It addresses Owen’s role in creed-making
during Cromwellian England, which culminated in his central role in the Savoy
declaration of faith and order. This new confession was a culmination of the
creed making efforts of seventeenth-century England, even though it did not
gain as much prominence as the Westminster Standards due to its late
introduction. Savoy fulfilled the purpose of Cromwell’s Instrument of
Government in desiring to make a new confession and it sought to vindicate
Congregationalism as a branch of Reformed theology. The last section (27-29)
adds that Owen and several of his contemporaries – Baxter being the notable
exception – believed that new creeds and confessions with increasing precision
in addressing the relevant issues of the time was a sign of the health of the
church. This research breaks new ground and provides a needed window into the
Reformed orthodox use of confessions.

Chapter 2:
Sebastian Rehnman, “John Owen on Faith and Reason,” 31-48.

Sebastian Rehnman
accurately portrays Owen’s view of the relationship between faith and reason.
This is a difficult task for living after the Enlightenment, since
post-Enlightenment views of reason have shifted radically. One way in which
this is the case lies in detaching metaphysics from epistemology. By contrast,
Reformed epistemology was based on Reformed metaphysics and ontology. This
chapter shows that Owen believed that the will or heart determined the
intellect in matters of faith (47). This distinguished faith from other areas
of scientific knowledge, since faith rests on divine testimony rather than on
historical proofs or evidences. He argues skillfully that Owen was neither a
“fideist,” or one who embraced the Christian faith without reason, nor a “rationalist”
who rooted faith in evidence or reason. However, Rehnman overstates his case
when he argues that Owen believed that rational arguments disposed one to faith
without producing faith (37) or that such arguments “count in favor of faith”
(40). It is more accurate to say that he believed that faith rested on divine
testimony alone and that rational arguments disposed one to faith only after
the regenerating work of the Spirit. In light of his earlier work on Owen,[ii]
it is surprising that Rehnman cites so little primary source literature from
Owen’s contemporaries. Nevertheless, this is a reliable guide to Owen’s use of
reason in relation to faith.

John Tweeddale (chapter
three) recognizes that Owen regarded his massive work on Hebrews as his magnum opus and the culmination of his
life’s work. He notes the distinctively Christological focus of these volumes
and how they tie together the entire corpus of his works. However, when the
author cites Owen’s three stated themes that organized this work, he neglects
to point out Owen’s explicit stress on public worship under the old and new
covenants (58-59). This reviewer argues elsewhere that the central place of
public worship in Owen’s theology has largely gone unnoticed.[iii]
This is true even in this case where the author provides a block citation in
which public worship is flagged as a central concern of the work on Hebrews. In
addition, Tweeddale accounts for Owen’s interest in Hebraic studies by
appealing exclusively to the fact that the Jews were recently readmitted to
England (62). While this is observation it vital, it is important to remember
that a seventeenth-century Bible commentator shared common concerns with modern
commentators. The original context of Hebrews involved problems related to
Jewish converts to Christianity. It is important to remember that while
historical context is vital for understanding how and why Reformed authors
thought, it is not the only contributing factor to their exegetical labors. However,
these criticisms are minor. Tweeddale distills the essence of this great work
and urges readers rightly to recognize its importance.

Willem van Asselt
examines the similarities and differences between Owen and Johannes Cocceius on
the relationship between the covenants of grace and redemption. He argues that
this theological construction was the foundation for relational theology and that
it held great potential for promoting “a living Reformed theology” (65). Van
Asselt is a leading figure in studies of Reformed orthodoxy and his
contributions are always exceptional and profound. He shows that while there is
no evidence for Cocceius depending on Owen, there is some evidence for Owen
depending on Cocceius (67). Van Asselt illustrates why many seventeenth-century
authors regarded distinguishing an eternal covenant between the Father and the
Son from the covenant of grace as integral to sound trinitarian theology and to
the knowledge of God. He writes, “Underlying this argument is the fundamental
assumption in Reformed theology that there must be a divine ad intra foundation for all divine works
ad extra. It is a fundamental
architectonic device in the doctrine of God indicated by the distinction
between archetypal and ectypal theology” (77).

This outstanding essay
warrants one minor correction. Van Asselt asserts that Thomas Boston
(1676-1732) and John Gill (1697-1771) developed the idea of collapsing the pactumsalutis and the covenant of grace into eternal and temporal aspects
of a single covenant (81). However, the idea goes back at least to Samuel Petto
(1624-1711), who treated the concept without giving the impression that he
originated it.[iv]
Though this question requires further research, it is possible that collapsing
the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace into one covenant was more
in vogue in antinomian circles than among others. The reason is that while most
Reformed authors regarded the covenant of redemption as providing the
unconditional and gracious ground for the conditional covenant of grace, the
antinomians regarded both covenants as unconditional and had less difficulty
collapsing the two.[v]
This does not imply that Boston and Gill were antinomians. Boston used the idea
of an unconditional covenant of grace to combat the legalism in the Church of
Scotland at the time. A single unconditional covenant also fit well with Gill’s
hyper-calvinistic tendencies, which denigrated human responsibility to some
extent. Van Asselt’s chapter should lead modern readers to reassess the reasons
behind older constructions of covenant theology and the practical results of
Reformed covenant theology.

Gert van den Brink
illustrates how Owen steered a course between Arminianism and Antinomianism in
his views of impetration (redemption accomplished) and application (redemption
applied). Arminians connected the impetration and application of redemption to
different people. Antinomians subsumed the application of redemption into
Christ’s work on the cross. This made the covenant of grace entirely
unconditional and meant that people were justified prior to coming to faith in
Christ. Owen argued that the death of Christ was the moral cause of
justification, but not the physical cause of justification. Moral causes do not
produce effects until a subject exists. Van den Brink argues that Owen used
this distinction to steer clear of both Arminianism and Antinomianism. Failing
to make distinctions in causation was why Richard Baxter mistakenly accused
Owen of Antinomianism. The author concludes that this issue is important for
three reasons (95). First, it clarifies the nature of the controversy between
Owen and Baxter. Second, it helps us understand the debate over universal
redemption in relation to harmonizing the impetration and application of
redemption. Third, distinguishing physical and moral causes avoids neglecting
contingency in favor of determinism. The reason is that moral causes assume
that secondary and intermediate causes (such as faith and repentance) come
between impetration and application in salvation. This chapter usefully
establishes the lay of the land at the core of seventeenth-century debates over
soteriology.

Crawford Gribben brilliantly
re-evaluates the usefulness of Edward Millington’s library catalog of Owen’s
books as a source for understanding his interests and influences. He sets an
important precedent for historical investigation regarding the use and misuse
of similar book catalogs. He argues provocatively that Owen scholars such as
Trueman, Kapic, and Rehnman have rested too heavily on this catalogue as an
indicator of his theological influences. He argues that “it is impossible” to
demonstrate that the Biblotheca Oweniana
bore “a direct and uncomplicated relationship to the books in Owen’s possession
at the moment of his death” (100). For instance, the catalog does not always
reflect the importance that he explicitly assigned to certain authors. Gribben
argues that Rehnman is mistaken in concluding that the number of references to
a theologian and statements of appreciation are an accurate means of
calculating theological influence (101). This reviewer has found this to be
true in relation to Johannes Hoornbeeck. Even though Owen made few references to
Hoornbeeck and he did not list him among “the principal authors,” his
prolegomena bears remarkable similarities to Hoornbeeck’s.[vi]
Gribben adds that the credibility of this catalog is questionable in light of
its omissions. For example, it contains almost no Bibles or Bible commentaries,
yet Owen certainly owned such works and used them continually in his preaching
ministry (107). The most interesting aspect of Gribben’s research is that he
has discovered a disproportionate number of books in the catalog that appeared
within the last three years of Owen’s life. This includes books such as, The Young Man’s Guide to Preferment.
Gribben adds, “It is seems uncertain why Owen was obtaining self-help career
guides one year before his death at the tender age of 67” (107). The evidence
possibly suggests that Millington “decided to pack the catalog with recently
published material he hoped to sell on the back of Owen’s reputation” (108). He
concludes that the Bibliotheca Oweniana
may be a less reliable source regarding Owen’s reading and influences than
scholars should expect (108). This chapter sets a model for research and
scholarship that transcends Owen studies. This reviewer eagerly awaits
Gribben’s projected intellectual biography of John Owen.

Kelly Kapic treats
Owen’s teaching on what it means for the Holy Spirit to be the gift of God. He
seeks to advance both historical and contemporary theology (114). He shows how
Owen rejected Socinian claim that if the Spirit is the gift of God then he is
not God. He answered this conundrum by pointing to the voluntary condescension
of the Spirit as the gift of the Father through the Son to believers. Kapic
argues that the primary value of Owen’s teaching on the Holy Spirit as God’s
gift is that the personal presence and operation of the Spirit is the source of
true spirituality. This provides an avenue through which to enjoy communion
with God in three persons. This chapter accurately describes Owen’s position
and sets the context in terms of Socinianism and Quakerism. However, the author
does not engage much with other Reformed authors. Readers better understand the
significance of Owen’s contributions when they know whether or not he is
typical or atypical among his contemporaries.

Chapter 8:
Suzanne McDonald, “Beholding the Glory of God in the Face of Jesus Christ: John
Owen and the ‘Reforming’ of the Beatific Vision,” 141-158.

Suzanne McDonald takes
up the “theological direction” of Owen’s treatment of the beatific vision
(142). This is one of the most fruitful contributions to this book. It provides
an outstanding model for a Christ-centered view of the vision of God in heaven
and lays the groundwork for the ethical implications of this doctrine for this
life (147). She contends that this subject is important because it received so
little attention by most Reformed orthodox authors. She argues that in contrast
to earlier authors such as Aquinas and contemporary authors such as Turretin,
Owen did not merely regard Christ as a means of obtaining the beatific vision,
but as a central component of seeing God in heaven (146, 150, 154).

While her argument is
profound and valuable both from a historical and a dogmatic standpoint, yet it
suffers from the same limited use of contemporary sources as several other
contributions to this volume. The only primary sources McDonald cites beyond
Owen are Aquinas and Turretin. This raises several questions: Did other
Reformed authors adapt Aquinas on the beatific vision in a similar way? Did
Turretin represent one option among others? Did the beatific vision factor
differently into practical works than dogmatic works? McDonald’s analysis of
Owen and Aquinas is outstanding. This reviewer hopes that her work will spur
others on to fill in the historical gaps surrounding this issue. In the
meantime, it is difficult to substantiate her claim that “Owen initiated” this
Christocentric trajectory on the beatific vision that involved the resurrected
bodies of the saints (158). Discovering the precise origins of a viewpoint is a
very difficult historical question. Thomas Manton referred to the beatific vision as “ocular” and
made Jesus Christ the object of physical sight in heaven.[vii] This
single example shows that it may be claiming too much to say that Owen reformed
the beatific vision. It is possible that Owen influenced Manton, but it is also
possible that both drew from a common unknown source. Both Owen and Manton
treat the beatific vision in works directed towards a popular rather than an
academic audience. By restrict our search for material on this subject to
scholastic theological works we may unintentionally neglect primary source
material that might make Owen appear less innovative than McDonald claims.
Ironically, she includes Jonathan Edwards as building on the groundwork laid by
Owen, but in a meditation on “The Pure in Heart Blessed,” Edwards argued that the
beatific vision would not (and could not) be with bodily eyes.[viii]
Edwards reflects a Christ-centered view of heaven while rejecting Owen and
Manton’s teaching on the place of Christ’s physical body and ours.

She concludes that
Owen’s Christological reorientation of the beatific vision “is correct, and
that the earlier tradition is deficient” (157). However, she criticizes him for
his lack of material on the Holy Spirit in the beatific vision, thus mitigating
a fully trinitarian position (158). This criticism is fair on some level, but
in Communion with God, Owen treats
communion with the Holy Spirit on earth as already enjoying heaven in measure.[ix] This
parallels his assertion that communion with Christ by faith now and by sight in
heaven share are of the same essence but not of the same degree. It is
legitimate to say that Owen should have been more explicit regarding the
Spirit’s role in the beatific vision in his Christological works, yet this
criticism diminishes when we look at his theology as a whole. He taught
explicitly that the communion that believers enjoy with the Father, through the
Son in heaven is sill by the Spirit. However, the beatific vision involves
sight. The Son is the only object of bodily sight in glory since he is the only
person in the Godhead who assumed (and retains) human flesh. While his
trinitarianism demands that the beatific vision involves communion with all
three persons, his Christology explains the emphasis that he placed on seeing
Christ. Vision and communion are closely related concepts, but they are not
synonymous. This chapter opens useful avenues of research. McDonald raises
questions that strike at the heart of the Christian life in Reformed orthodox
and Puritan theology.

Chapter 9: Edwin
Tay, “Christ’s Priestly Oblation and Intercession: Their Development and
Significance in John Owen,” 159-169.

Chapter nine treats the
oblation and intercession of Christ in his humiliation and exaltation (159).
Edwin Tay illustrates the intimate connection between Owen’s teaching on the
priesthood of Christ and his work of atonement. He unfolds his teaching on Christ’s
oblation and his subsequent intercession and then treats the significance of
Owen’s debate with Baxter over the nature and extent of the atonement. Christ’s
oblation is equivalent to his entire state of humiliation and his intercession
to his entire state of exaltation. Tay argues that the reason why Owen could
distinguish between the elect possessing the right to justification and yet not
hold it in possession until exercising faith was that the right corresponded to
Christ’s oblation and the application or possession corresponded to his
intercession. In so doing, he shows the consistency of Owen’s atonement theory
with his Christology. The theme of this chapter overlaps significantly with
chapter five, since Tay notes that oblation and intercession are “synonymous”
with impetration and application (167, fn 48). The primary difference lies in
Tay’s more explicit attention to the priesthood of Christ. This treatment
usefully illustrates the close connection between Owen’s orthodox Christology
and Soteriology.

Chapter 10: Alan
Spence, “The Significance of John Owen for Modern Christology,” 171-184.

Chapter ten is a
condensed version of Alan Spence’s previous book on John Owen’s Christology.[x]
The essence of his argument is that Owen’s view of Christ’s human dependence on
the Spirit provides a vital alternative to modern Christological models that
mitigate claims to Christ’s deity in search of the true Jesus of history. While
the author’s conclusions are sound, he draws from a limited range of Owen’s works
and does not adequately set his teaching on the Spirit in historical context.
For instance, this reviewer has found similar emphases on the relation of the
Sprit to Christ’s humanity in contemporary authors such as Thomas Goodwin,[xi]
and later authors such as Thomas Boston.[xii]
Spence gives the impression that this is a distinctively, if not exclusively,
Owenian contribution to theology. On page 178, he slightly misses the origin of
Socinian influences in England by connecting it to John Biddle. However, Sarah
Mortimer has recently demonstrated that Socinian influences came into England
much earlier, but that Socinian influences in the English context were indirect
and complex.[xiii]

Chapter 11:
Robert Letham, “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity in its Catholic Context,”
185-198.

Robert Letham’s chapter
is thought provoking, but has some historical limitations. He asks whether
Owen’s Trinitarian emphases have eastern or western tendencies. He argues that
Owen’s views on matters such as the fililoque
clause were western, but his stress on distinct communion with the divine
persons was eastern in tone (186, 191). When we read Letham’s many helpful and
profound works on the Trinity,[xiv]
we always walk away with the impression that western Trinitarians are the “bad
guys.” This essay is no exception (188, for example). Citing verbatim from an
earlier publication, Letham notes, “Owen is not so much an innovator as a
brilliant synthesizer” (190).[xv]
The synthesis that he has in mind is between western emphases on the unity of
God and eastern emphases on the divine persons. He adds, “[Owen’s] focus on the
three persons was and is missing from the West in general” (196).

Letham does not give
enough evidence either by comparing or contrasting Owen to his contemporaries to
show that this was the case in seventeenth-century theology. Showing similarities
between Owen and eastern authors on divine three persons means less if we find
that other western authors held to similar emphases for different reasons. Owen
is largely unique among English writers in terms of Trinitarian piety. However,
he shows affinity with Dutch authors such as Voetius and Hoornbeeck, both of
whom he cited periodically.[xvi]
These and other Dutch authors developed a devotional emphasis on the divine
persons in response to Arminianism. Arminians denied that the Trinity was a
fundamental article of the faith because it had no practical value.[xvii]
Owen was less directly concerned with Arminian views of the Trinity than these men,
but it is more likely that his emphasis on the persons of the Godhead stems
from a continental influence than from eastern theology. One historian has
warned recently about relying too much on English books in studying English
Reformed theology following the advent of Early English Books Online.[xviii]
In this case, continental authors produced trinitarian emphases that were less
common in an English context due to differing theological concerns. Moreover,
Letham bypasses Richard Muller’s defense of the Reformed orthodox against the
charge that they tended to abstract the divine essence and attributes from the
Trinity.[xix]

Letham’s preoccupation
with the question of East versus West spills over into his examination of Owen
on the covenant of redemption. He criticizes Owen for his “binitarian
construction” of the covenant of redemption (196). He regards this as
reflecting the western tendency to subordinate and depersonalize the Holy
Spirit. However, Jonathan Edwards later clarified the role of the Spirit in the
covenant of redemption. He argued that the Spirit is active in the covenant of
redemption, but he is not a party in that covenant because he is not
humiliated. The Son’s humiliation is vital to his being a party in the covenant
of redemption. On the other hand, the Spirit is actively involved in the covenant
because he cannot be inactive without dividing the Godhead.[xx]
Edwards did not invent this explanation, but he explained it more clearly than
most Reformed authors.[xxi]
Letham argues that Owen was allegedly aware of the danger that the covenant of
redemption posed to the Trinity and that it implied that the persons of the
Godhead needed a covenant to unite them in their purpose (196). He concluded
that Owen’s difficulty with the persons betrays his western roots (197). He
adds that the East stresses that we know the persons by our relation to them in
redemption rather than by definition. However, this was precisely Horrnbeeck’s
conclusion to his treatment of the Trinity[xxii]
and it pervades Peter van Mastricht’s chapters on the three persons.[xxiii]
Earlier in this volume, Willem van Asselt argued that the trinitarian structure
of the covenant of redemption enabled Owen and Cocceius to emphasize communion
with all three divine persons.

A broader context of
seventeenth-century western trinitarianism might reveal that the question of
eastern versus western trinitarianism was not on the Reformed horizon. Letham gives
the impression that he is asking the wrong questions of the wrong century. His
knowledge of eastern and western trinitarianism is impressive, but the context
that he sets for Owen is too narrow in terms of primary sources and too broad
in terms of historical setting.

Chapter 12:
George Hunsinger, “Justification and Mystical Union with Christ: Where Does
Owen Stand?” 199-211.

George Hunsinger’s
chapter on Owen’s position regarding the relationship between justification and
mystical union with Christ (chapter twelve) stands out to this reviewer as
particularly valuable. This is true both for historical and contemporary
theology. He notes that shortly after Luther’s death, a distinction arose
between Lutheran and Reformed theologians over this question. Post-Reformation
Lutherans regarded justification as the cause of union with Christ while the
Reformed treated union with Christ as the ground of justification (199-200).
Both sides agreed that justification was a forensic or judicial pronouncement
that a sinner is righteous in God’s sight. The difference was that the Reformed
distinguished between being constituted righteous and being counted righteous,
while Lutherans treated these as synonymous terms. Hunsinger notes a similar
distinction between Melanchthon’s teaching that justification is because of
Christ (propter Christum) and the
Reformed view (shared with Luther) that justification is in Christ (204).[xxiv]

The question regards
the nature of imputed righteousness. Does God constitute sinners to be
righteousness by imputation and then count them righteous on the grounds of union
with Christ? Or does God justify sinners by declaration and count them as righteous
because of this declaration? The author argues that the Reformed position was
that God unites people to Christ and constitutes them righteous in Christ
before he counts or declares them righteous. Thus union with Christ and imputed
righteousness logically precede justification. Comparing justification to God
speaking and brining the world into being, Lutherans often treated imputation
and the declaration of justification as synonymous.

Basing his material
largely on Owen’s treatise on justification by faith, he argues that Owen drew
several consequences from the Reformed position. First, imputation as opposed
to infusion is the formal cause of justification (209). Second, imputed
righteousness involved “a real change in the believer’s condition, not just a
new relationship with God” (210). Third, mystical union with Christ is more
than a mere union of wills, yet without erasing the distinction between Christ
and believers (210). The questions that Hunsinger addresses continue to be
relevant in Reformed churches today. Though this is a historical treatment, the
author approaches the topic with remarkable clarity that will serve both
historians and theologians well.

Tim Cooper’s chapter
bears strong similarities to his outstanding work, John Owen, Richard Baxter, and the Formation of Non-Conformity.[xxv] This
longer work asks why Owen and Baxter disliked each other and what effects this
had on the formation of non-conformity after the Restoration of the monarchy.
Owen wrote very little about himself, he did not allow personal records to
survive, and he is hard to find as a historical subject. The value of this work
and the chapter in this volume lies in piecing together Owen’s actions at
Oxford, attacks against character, and his sharp disagreements with men such as
Baxter to give a unique window into what he was possibly like. This is a
difficult but brilliant approach to getting to know Owen. The liability is that
this presents a slightly vilified Owen that may be more or less true to life.
If we follow Cooper’s advice to use this evidence cautiously, then we can
safely assume that he helps readers gain at least a glimpse of an otherwise
elusive figure.

John Coffey has written
extensively and authoritatively on toleration in Reformation and
post-Reformation England. The application of his expertise to Owen is gripping
and informative. He argues that Owen’s attitude towards tolerating those from
other trinitarian Christian communions was more generous than most in his time
period, but that he vacillated in his views when faced with the question of
Congregationalism potentially becoming the established religion in the
interregnum.

Chapter 15:
Daniel R. Hyde, “‘The Fire the Kindleth all our Sacrifices to God:’ Owen and
the Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer,” 249-270.

Daniel Hyde usefully
summarizes Owen’s view of the work of the Spirit in public worship through the
media of prayer. In addition to showing that Owen both rejected mandating forms
of prayer and permitted their use in a limited manner, Hyde shows how Owen
developed his theology of worship from his exposition of Scripture. In
particular, he shows the importance of Eph. 4:7-13 (254-255), Zech. 12:10
(259-261), Gal. 4:6 (261-262), Rom. 8:26 (262-267), and Eph. 6:18 for the
exegetical foundation for Owen’s “liturgical theology.” The result is that this
chapter not only redresses the absence of material on Owen’s theology of
worship, but it fills some of the lacunae in the exegetical foundation of
Reformed orthodox theology.

Lee Gatiss briefly
outlines Owen’s arguments in favor of infant baptism and infant salvation. He draws
from a wide range of seventeenth century authors and establishes the context
for his material more appropriately than several of the authors in this volume.
He rightly recognizes the oft neglected fact that the Anabaptist rejection of
paedobaptism “was a major catalyst” in developing covenant theology in Reformed
orthodoxy (272). His chapter shows how closely intertwined the ideas of
covenant and baptism were in the sixteenth and seventeenth-centuries. This
chapter is interesting, well-written, and helps clarify the matters pertinent
to this much debated question.

The final chapter, by
Martin Foord, examines the question regarding the will of God towards all
people in relation to the free offer of the gospel (283). He locates Owen in
the broader Reformed tradition and draws from a wealth of primary sources. The
question regards God’s will or desire towards the salvation of the unregenerate
in relation to Ezekiel 18:23, 32, 33:11 (284). Foord traces the theology and
exegesis surrounding this question through Calvin, Vermigli, Musculus,
Zanchius, Perkins, Piscator, Twisse, Manton, Bates, and Turretin in order to
situate Owen’s view within Reformed options. In addition, he delves deeply into
the medieval background of different senses of speaking of the will of God.
This broad context makes his conclusions concrete and his observations helpful
for contemporary questions. Some authors distinguished simply between God’s
will of good pleasure (voluntas
beneplaciti) and his significant will (volutas
signi). The former refers to the divine decree and the latter corresponds
to his precepts (285-286). Turretin later represented clearly what became the classic
distinction between God decretive and his perceptive will (291). Others (Piscator
and Twisse) argued that God wills the destruction of the wicked, but he does
not take pleasure in it because they are his creatures (287-288). Manton argued
that God delighted in the redemption of all people in some sense, but that he
did not will it in another sense (290). Owen believed that the text referred to
God’s commands and said nothing about divine affections (292). He ultimately
limited the love of God to the elect (294). His doctrine of God did not allow
him to say that God delights in or wills the salvation of all in some sense.
Foord concludes that Owen’s views lean toward later eighteenth-century
hyper-Calvinism and that his resolution of the Ezekiel text was only one among
several Reformed explanations (295). This treatment gives a broad historical
perspective on what continues to be a difficult question in Reformed theology.

Conclusion

The Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen’s
Theology is an important benchmark in the study of Reformed orthodoxy. It
is a monumental achievement that introduces readers to the general scope of
Owen’s thought. Some of the research in this volume is groundbreaking. All of
it provides a foundation on which to move forward in both in historical and
contemporary theology. Historical theology is one of the most useful means of
enabling contemporary theologians to engage in self-critical evaluation through
the eyes of different people with different problems. However, this book is not
perfect. Some of the authors do not rely on primary source evidence and context
as much as others. There are many gaps in subject matter as well. In addition
to the themes treated here, it would be helpful to have an introductory volume
to John Owen that investigates topics such as his trinitarian piety, connecting
trinitarian piety to public worship, his Thomistic and medieval influences, the
influence that he had on later Reformed theologians, a detailed introduction to
his life and career in relation to his theology, the influence of his tenure at
Oxford on the university and its students, his covenant theology and
ecclesiology, and others. This reviewer hopes that this book will be the first
among other volumes to help revive the importance and relevance of Owen both to
the church and to the university.

The preceding was first published in the
2013 issue of Mid-America Journal of
Theology and is used here with
permission.

[iii]
Ryan M. McGraw, A Heavenly Directory:
Trinitarian Piety, Public Worship, and a Reassessment of John Owen’s Theology
(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, forthcoming). Daniel Hyde makes the
same point in this present volume, but he does not connect Owen’s views of
public worship to his practical trinitarianism.

[iv] Samuel Petto, The Difference Between the
Old and New Covenant Stated and Explained with an Exposition of the Covenant of
Grace in the Principal Concernments of It (London: Printed for Eliz.
Calvert, 1674), 5-7, 13, 16, 19.

[xi] Thomas Goodwin, The Works of Thomas
Goodwin, D.d. ... the First Volume. Containing, an Exposition on the First, and
Part of the Second Chapter, of the Epistle to the Ephesians. and Sermons
Preached on Several Occasions. (London: Printed by J.D. and S.R. for T.G.,
1681).

[xvii]
See Gisperti Voetii, Selectarum Disputationum Theologicarum, Pars Prima (Utrecht, 1648),
1:472, who called the Trinity the fundamentum
fundamenti. He added that the doctrine of the Trinity was fundamental
because it was the foundation of so many practical uses, personal holiness, and
divine worship (473). For Hoornbeeck, see Johannes Hoornbeeck, Theologiae Practicae (Utrecht, 1663),
1:136.

[xviii]
Polly Ha, Patrick Collinson, eds., The Reception of Continental Reformation in
Britain (Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 2010), 235-236.

[xix] Richard A Muller, Post-Reformation
Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, Ca. 1520 to
Ca. 1725 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academics, 2003), 4:144-149. Muller makes the important
observation that the table of contents of dogmatic works are not a reliable
guide regarding how Reformed authors related the divine attributes to the
persons of the Godhead in terms of their relative importance. Letham makes this
mistake on pg. 189 and in other books where he treats Reformed orthodox views
of the Trinity.

[xx]
Jonathan Edwards, “Economy of the Trinity in
the Covenant of Redemption,” The Works of
Jonathan Edwards Online, 20:441-442.